- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "Mike Brown Law. Requires all state, county, and local police to wear a camera."
Posted on 8/18/14 at 4:21 pm to Meauxjeaux
Posted on 8/18/14 at 4:21 pm to Meauxjeaux
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/14/16 at 2:16 pm
1
Posted on 8/18/14 at 4:36 pm to Negative Nomad
quote:
I don't care what you might read in the media.
You retards spout shite when you have no idea what you're talking about.
I work with cops. Lots of them. Many of them are direct decision makers in what cops buy and use for their patrol duties.
The number of them that want to buy and are buying wearable cameras is far, far greater than those that don't.
So, to answer your uninformed bullshite, I have direct, first hand knowledge of this.
So there.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 4:41 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
Requires all state, county, and local police to wear a camera."
This really needs to happen.
quote:
Mike Brown Law
hell no how about the common sense application of technology in law enforcement law.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 4:44 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:Estimated cost (for cameras only; not video equipment used to upload and store video, etc.): $700 million.
all state, county, and local police to wear a camera
That said, it would also likely save significant amounts of money as well, in addition to greatly reducing the number of complaints against police forces. All in all, it would probably be a positive step.
I would not name the law after a thug, however.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 4:53 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:We already know he was facing. What do you want to find next, the truth? Seems little desire is for the truth, or folks wouldn't be using words such as summary execution to illicit a response.
Then when this shite happens again we won't have to debate on which way the victim was running or facing.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 5:00 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
I support it...with the caveat that the video is property of THE PUBLIC. No picking and choosing (by Eric with-Holder, et al) which gets held back and which gets released. And no *CRASHED* hard drives! Prompt publication and airing of any pertinent video REQUIRED BY LAW.
All video should be treated as potential evidence, and if not used as such, be public record.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 5:00 pm to Dire Wolf
Does this mean cops have to also steal cigars?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 5:01 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
Great point, Crazy
Posted on 8/18/14 at 7:14 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The defense will attack the victim.
Not sure they will attack the victim, but seeing who the victim is does play a part. If you do not believe that, then you have not been paying attention. The family and media wants to show a much younger and docile looking image and was outraged at the crime footage shown, because that image of Brown helps their narrative.
quote:
Not really. As more info comes out, it appears we know less and less.
The autopsy report showed us that he was not shot in the back. No?
quote:
dehumanize the victim. That's a good defense, too.
He was a huge man, a very large man whose size and the previous struggle for the cop's weapon justifies any fear the officer may have had for his own safety and life.
quote:
There's no evidence he was running towards the cop when he was shot.
Did you see the press conference this morning? There is much evidence to support the argument that he was facing the cop. No shots in the back. I am sure if there were bullet holes in the back you would see that as evidence.
I would bet you, that had there been bullet holes in his back, many people that were supporting the cop, would have changed their tunes and said the cop was dirty and needed to be charged. You on the other hand, cannot see any situation where you would think that the black guy put the cop's life in danger which would justify the shoot.
You are dishonest and have no interest in the truth in this matter.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 7:26 pm
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:04 pm to SpidermanTUba
Coming from someone who doesnt understand guns, I could see why you'd think this is a good idea.
A number of agencies already wear lapel cameras and have been pretty valuable giving the real story.
Gun cameras would be blurry as hell and only add to the confusion.
Go youtube some lapel videos. Interesting stuff...
A number of agencies already wear lapel cameras and have been pretty valuable giving the real story.
Gun cameras would be blurry as hell and only add to the confusion.
Go youtube some lapel videos. Interesting stuff...
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:47 pm to SpidermanTUba
TUba
Moron <-------- Here's your sign.
Moron <-------- Here's your sign.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News